What evidence should I provide? You concede that climate change is true.
> Yes. Both sources I posted are not anecdotal.
1. They are both the same source, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia emails.
2. Def of anecdotal: "(of an account or evidence) possibly not true or accurate because it is based on personal accounts". I would say emails are anecdotal if there is no evidence backing up that the claims made in the emails are true. My point is that these messages do not prove that models were manufactured, as your own source admits: "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data used for his research" and "no evidence of inappropriately manipulated data". Maybe anecdote was the wrong word to use for this.
3. The emails provide no evidence that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok".
> Ad hominem.
I would define Ad hominem as attacking a persons character rather than their positions. I believe that narratives can influence a persons position, and I am not commenting on your character, but how your position has been influence by a narrative.
hotdogscout|2 years ago
I will list them.
>The facts are true, but the vibes and the feelings are off, so of course it can't be true.
No evidence.
>Do you have any non anecdotal sources that they are "manufacturing models" or that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok"?
Yes. Both sources I posted are not anecdotal.
>No of course not, you "feel" it does because that is a narrative you have been fed.
Ad hominem.
teh64|2 years ago
What evidence should I provide? You concede that climate change is true.
> Yes. Both sources I posted are not anecdotal.
1. They are both the same source, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia emails.
2. Def of anecdotal: "(of an account or evidence) possibly not true or accurate because it is based on personal accounts". I would say emails are anecdotal if there is no evidence backing up that the claims made in the emails are true. My point is that these messages do not prove that models were manufactured, as your own source admits: "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data used for his research" and "no evidence of inappropriately manipulated data". Maybe anecdote was the wrong word to use for this.
3. The emails provide no evidence that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok".
> Ad hominem.
I would define Ad hominem as attacking a persons character rather than their positions. I believe that narratives can influence a persons position, and I am not commenting on your character, but how your position has been influence by a narrative.